Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Sadik Mohammed vs State (Education Department)Anr on 4 March, 2013
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14286/2012 (Dr. Rajeev Navaria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13364/2012 (Dr. Nand Kishore Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14240/2012 (Dr. Varun Kumar Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14820/2012 (Dr. Sadik Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13850/2012 (Dr. Rama Singh Chundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15317/2012 (Dr. Sarita Kumari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 04th March, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.S.P.Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr.S.S.Shekhawat ] Mr.Ashok Gaur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ajay Choudhary ] Mr.Bharat Saini with Dr.Soniya Saini ], for the petitioner/s. Mr.S.N.Kumawat, Additional Advocate General. Mrs.Shruti Dixit, Dy.Government Counsel. Mr.D.S.Shekhawat, for the respondent/s. By the Court:
These writ petitions pertain to selection to the post of Assistant Professor in various disciplines, namely, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics Gynaecology.
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short RPSC) issued advertisement on 03.08.2009 calling for the applications. The respondents then issued corrigendum from time to time and last corrigendum was issued on 03rd May, 2011 where last date of submission of application form was 23rd May, 2011. A further corrigendum was issued on 10.10.2011 but there the last date for submission of application form was not changed. It was basically to increase number of posts so advertised. All the petitioners submitted applications and appeared in the screening test. The petitioners were declared ineligible on the ground that they were not pursuing their studies of required eligibility course in final year before the last date of submission of application form. The petitioners accordingly approached this Court and interim order was passed in their favour enabling them to appear in the interview. The interview was over on or before the date of interim order in two writ petitions bearing No.14286/2012 & 14820/2012, thus petitioners therein could not be interviewed, otherwise all other petitioners were interviewed provisionally.
Learned counsel submits that an amendment in the Rules was made by the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 1999 (for short Rules of 1999). Therein a candidate appeared or is appearing in final year examination of the course has been made entitled to submit application form, however, to become eligible, he/she was required to possess qualification on or before the date of written examination or interview, as the case may be. The petitioners herein were undergoing PG course, thus submitted application form and they qualified the required qualifying course on or before the date of interview. In view of above, all the petitioners were eligible for selection.
Learned counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand submits that as per the terms of the advertisement, a candidate was eligible to submit application form if he has already appeared in the final year or is appearing in final year examination. An explanation was appended to show that one should be in final year examination of the course to become eligible for submission of application form. The candidate should pass out the required course of eligibility on or before final selection test/interview. None of the petitioners were in final year of the course, thus rendered ineligible. It was after seeking explanation from the State Government, thus action of the RPSC is not only in accordance to the rules but terms of the advertisement.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The controversy raised in these writ petitions is regarding eligibility. For the aforesaid purpose a reference of amendment rules of 1999 has been given, thus it is quoted hereunder :
Amendment.-In the existing rule as mentioned in Column Number 3 against each of the Service Rules as mentioned in Column Number 2 of the Schedule appended herewith, the following proviso shall be added, namely:-
Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but he/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency:-
(i)before appearing in the main examination, where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview;
(ii)before appearing in interview where selection is made through written examination and interview;
(iii)before appearing in the written examination or interview where selection is made through only written examination or only interview, as the case may be.
The perusal of amended rules shows that a candidate appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of requisite educational qualification course for the post would be eligible to apply but he/she shall have to submit proof of educational qualification on or before the main examination or the interview as the case may be. The respondents have made reference of terms of the advertisement, thus it would be necessary to quote the conditions mentioned therein, which is also quoted hereunder :
????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??:-
?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????, ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??, ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??????????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????.
?????????? :- ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????-???? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??. ??? ????? O.M.R. Application From ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? "App. ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? O.M.R. Application From ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????.
The perusal of explanation quoted above shows it to be not in consonance to the rules so amended. In any case, if it is assumed that to become eligible for submission of application form, one should have taken admission in the final year of the course then in the fact of this case, all the petitioners were in final year. It is in view of the fact that PF course is not divided by first year, second year or final year, rather no examinations are conducted in between. A candidate taking admission in PG course appears only in one examination, thus it cannot be said that a candidate was not in final year of the requisite qualification course when it is not divided in the first, second or final year and so on. In view of the above, even if requirement is that a candidate should be in final year of course at the time of submission of application form, the petitioners herein have fulfilled the conditions. It has further come on record that result of requisite eligibility course was declared on or before the date of interview as the last date for interview was 17.09.2012. In the background aforesaid, not only the petitioners were appearing in the final year examination but completed the course on or before the date of interview. In the background aforesaid, they have wrongly been held ineligible for the post. It seems to be under some confusion by the State Government dividing PG course in previous and final year or first, second and final year. In the background aforesaid, the action of the respondents in treating petitioners to be ineligible is held contrary to the rules, thus impugned orders are set aside. The petitioners, who have already appeared in the screening test would however be eligible for interview only if they have secured required cut off marks in their category. If any of the petitioner failed to secure required marks in the screening test then he would not be eligible for appointment even if appeared in interview pursuant to the interim order of this Court. Same way, a candidate secured required marks in the screening test and appeared in interview would be eligible for appointment subject to possession of required cut off marks at the level of interview and other eligibility conditions. If any petitioner fails to secure required cut off marks in the interview would not be entitled for appointment.
It is necessary to mention that petitioners in writ petition Nos. 14286/2012 & 14820/2012 could not appear in interview, hence, if they have secured equivalent or more marks to the cut off in the screening test then be interviewed now by the RPSC. If those petitioners secure required cut off marks in the interview then would be entitled for consequential benefits as directed above. Failure in the interview would not entitle them for appointment.
With the aforesaid direction/s, all the writ petitions are allowed so as stay application/s. This disposed of all the application/s also.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A